The cause of action for the exercise of the power to issue writs under Article 226 must arise within the territorial limits of the High Court, irrespective of the residence of the petitioner.

( 1 ) CAN a person residing in a State invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 against an authority or government situated outside the State in respect of an order made or action taken by such government or authority outside the territorial limits of the High Court ? Put it differently, whether cause of action wholly or in part arises within meaning of Cl. (2) of Art. 226 in the State where petitioner resides ?

( 2 ) FOR this it is necessary to narrate in brief the circumstances in which Cl. (2) was added in Art. 226 by Constitution (Fifteenth Amendment) Act, 1963, Art. 226 (1) as it originally stood read as under :"notwithstanding anything in Art. 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any government, within those territories directions, orders, or writs, including (writ in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose ). It was drastically amended by Forty Second Amendment, 1976 but it has been restored as it was by Forty Fourth Amendment Act, 1978. Therefore, it may be seen as to how the expression every High Court shall have power through the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction used in this article was interpreted. The first decision which came up before Honble Supreme Court was Election Commission of India v. Saka Venkata Subba Rao, 1953 0 SCR 1144. A writ of prohibition was sought against Election Commission having its permanent office at New Delhi. It was issued by the Madras High Court. The decision was overruled and it was held : "we are unable to agree with the learned Judge below that if a tribunal or authority permanently located and normally carrying on its activities elsewhere exercises jurisdiction within those territorial limits so as to affect the rights of parties therein such tribunal or authority must be regarded as "functioning" within the territorial limits of the High Court and being, therefore, amenable to its jurisdiction under Art. 226. "the Honble Court further repelled the argument of inconvenience and held,"it was said that it could not have been contemplated that an inhabitant of the State of Madras, feeling aggrieved by a threatened interference with the exercise of his rights in that State by an authority, located in Delhi and acting without jurisdiction, should seek his remedy under Art. 226 in the Punjab High Court. It is a sufficient answer to this argument of inconvenience to say that, the language of the article being reasonably plain, it is idle to speculate as to what was or was not contemplated. Soon thereafter came another case K. S. Rashid and Sons v. The Income-tax Investigation, 1954 SCR 738. K. S. Rashid and Sons, who were assessees in State of U. P. filed writ for prohibition in High Court of Punjab to restrain the Commission from proceedings under S. 5 of Act XXX of 1947. The petition was dismissed and the preliminary objection that petitioners being assessees belonging to the State of U. P. could not approach Punjab High Court merely because Commission was in Delhi was upheld. In appeal the Honble Court set aside this finding and held that petition was maintainable. It reiterated the view in Election Commission case (supra) and held : "there are only two limitations placed upon the exercise of these powers by a High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution : one is that the power is to be exercised "through out the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction", that is to say, the writs issued by the Court cannot run beyond the territories subject to its jurisdiction. The other limitation is that the person or authority to whom the High Court is empowered to issue writs "must be within those territories" and this implies that they must be am